F 



SPEECH 



HON. JOHN n. THOMSON, 



OF NEW JERSEY, 



ON 



THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS; 



DEUVERED 



N THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 3, 1«58. 



^ 



■;#^ ' ^ 






^ 



WASHINGTON: 

l-JMNTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICB* 

1858. 



SPEECH. 



Thi; Senate having under consideration tlie bill for the 
.idiiiission of Kansa!« into the Union as a State — 

Mr. THOMSON said: 

Mr. President: I shall vote for the bill for the 
admission of Kansas as a State into the Union, 
and. I shall ask permission, very briefly, to state j 
some of the reasons which induce me to do so. 

1 am aware, sir, that this subject has been so | 
fully discussed in this Chamber that nothing new 
can be added to it by any one, least of all by me; 
and I therefore owe an apology in advance to the 
Senate for repeating, as I shall be obliged to do, 
what has been said before so much better than I 
can possibly hope to do. But the section of the 
Union from which I come, with the views I en- 
tertain, render it proper, if not necessary, that 1 
should ask your indulgence for a few minutes. 

For the last four years our country has been 
kept in a state of fearful excitement by the agita- 
tion of a question which has threatened the exist- 
ence of our Union, and, if muchlongercontinued, 
must at no distant day inevitably dissolve it. 

An opportunity, in my opinion, is now pre- 
sented to settle it — an opportunity by which this 
question, wiiich can never be discussed with profit 
or safety in Congress, may be removed forever 
from its Halls. 

An opportunity is now presented to localize an 
institution within the limits of the States which 
are interested in it, and to carry out the great 
principle of the Kansas-iN'ebraska act of *' non- 
intervention by Congress with slavery in the 
Stales and Territories." Shall we embrace the 
opportunity thus presented, or shall we, by neg- 
lecting it, put in peril, as we will do, the peace, 
if not thu existence, of the Union? 

A Territory of the United States asks admis- 
sion as a State into the Union, and presents to 
you a constitution in every respect — in form and 
in substance — legal and republican; a constitution 
framed and put into operation in precisely the 
same manner as ten of the new States of the 
Union; aconstitution whose validity is recognized 
by the acts of the people, and substantially rati- 



; ficd by their election, under its provisions, of a 
member of Congress to represent them in your 

t House of Representatives, a Governor, and mem- 

j bers of the State Legislature. 

! But, notwithstanding this perfect conformity 
with law and usage, this application is resisted 
on the ground of its constitution not being in ac- 
cordance with the will of the people, and its not 
having been submitted as a whole to them for rat- 
ification or rejection. 

Now, Mr. President, from the great stress 
which has been laid in certain quarters upon the 
necessity of such a submission, one wouUl be apt 
to suppose that such had always heretofore been 
the rule as a prerequisite to the admission of a 
State into the Union; and that the case of Kansas, 
in which the whole constitution was not submit- 
ted to the people, was a fatal exception to that rule, 
and on that account should be rejected by Con- 
gress. 

But in the investigation which I have made into 
the history of the formation of the constitutions 
of the different States of the Union, I have arrived 
at a very different result; and am satisfied that, so 
far from submission being a rule, it has been a 
marked exception to it. Now, although I do most 
heartily approveof the submission to the people of 
a State of all great questions affecting their inter- 
ests, not only their forms of government, but also 
legislative acts involving the creation of debt and 
the faith of the State, yet, sir, the submission of 
aconstitution, after having been framed by a con- 
vention of delegates duly elected for that purpose, 
lias certainly not been considered necessary by a 
large number, if not by a majority of the States 
of this Union. If the people desire to act directly 
by their votes upon the adoption of a constitution., 
they have the undoubted right to do so. But they 
have an equal right to delegate their power to a 
convention to act for them, and to maKe and put 
in operation a constitution witln>ut submitting Lt 
to them for their further action. 

And if it be true, as has recently been said, that 
a submission to the people, and their adoption of 
aconstitution, is necessary togive it validity, then, 



upon the same principle, legislative acts should 
in like manner be submitted before taking effect; 
for the people are more interested in, and fre- 
quently more seriously injured by, bad laws than 
by bad constitutions. 

I have said that a large number, if not a major- 
ity, of the States of the Union, have not consid- 
ered this submission as at all necessary. The 
constitutions, now in force, ofthe following named 
States, were not submitted for ratification to the 
people, but adopted in convention. 

Vermont adopted her constitution July 4, 1793, 
in convention at Windsor. (Compiled Statutes 
of Vermont, page 15.) 

Connecticut, by convention, in 1818. (See Com- 
pilation of Statutes of Connecticut, 1854, pages 29 
and 45.) 

Delaware, by convention, in 1831. (See Acts 
of 1831, page 49; and Revised Code, page 43.) 

Pennsylvania, by convention, in 1838, with a 
provision for future amendments to be ratified by 
the people. (See Purdon's Digest, page 17, sec- 
tion 10.) 

North Carolina adopted her present constitu- 
tion in 1776, by convention ; amendments in 1835. 

South Carolina, in 1790, by convention. 

Georgia, by convention, on the 23d of May, 
1798. 

Alabama, in 1819, by convention under ena- 
bling act. (See Code of Alabama, page 26, section 
5, page 28.) 

Mississippi, by convention , in 1817 ; and revised 
in like manner in 1832. 

Tennessee, by convention, in 1836. 

Kentucky, by convention, in 1799. 

Arkansas, by convention , without enabling act. 
(See Revised Strxtutcsof Arkansas, pages 17-48.) 

Missouri, by convention, in 1820;andnot sub- 
mitted to the people. 

Illinois, by convention, in 1818; also appears 
not to have been submitted to the people. 

The following were compelled by statute to 
submit the constitutions framed by the conven- 
tions to the people: 

New York, constitution adopted in 1846. Sec- 
tion 9, act of 1845, providing for the convention, 
required its ratification by ilie people. | 

New Jersey, act of 1844, approved February 
23. Section nine required its submission to the 
people. It was submitted and ratified in 1844. I 

Maryland, formed in 1851, and ratified by the 
people, in accordance with previous act of Legis- , 
iature. (See Acts of 1849, chapter 346, section 8.) i 

Virginia, formed in 1851. Act of March 13, 
1851, required its ratification by the people. 

Indiana, formed in 1851, ratified by the people, 
as required by the law authorizing the conven- 
tion. (See act of 1850, a|)proved January 18, 
sections 14 and 15.) The section relative to the 
exclusion and colonization of negroes was sub- 
mitted as a distinct proposition. (See Revised 
Statutes, volume 1, page 72.) 

Wisconsin, 1848. Section nine of schedule re- 
quired its ratification by the people. (Revised Stat- 
utes, 1849.) In April, 1847, the constitution was 
defeated by ovorsevi'ii thousand majority. (Niles's 
Register, volume 72, page 114.) A new consti- 
tution was then fornK.'d, and the State admitted 
under it May 29, 1H4H. 

Iowa, formed in 1846. Previous laws of June 
10, 1845, (over the veto of the Governor,) and of 



January 17, 1846, required ratification by the- 
people. 

Ohio, the first constitution, formed under an 
enabling act of Congress, adopted 29th October, 
1802, was not submitted to the people; that of 
the 10th March, 1857, was submitted to the peo- 
ple and approved by them. 

Louisiana, formed 1852. The constitution was, 
by previous enactment, required to be submitted, 
and was ratified by the people. 

Michigan, formed 1850. Act of March 9, 1850, 
required it to be submitted to the people. (See 
Laws of 1850, No. 78, section 6, on page 66.) 

Maine, formed in 1819, by convention, (page 
432 Hickey 's Constitution ;) amendments submit- 
ted to the people 1834, 1837, 1839. 

New Hampshire, formed 1792. (See Compiled 
Statutes, page 15.) Approved by the two-third 
vote of the people, and established by convention 
September 5, 1792. 

Rhode Island, formed 1842. Ratified by vote of 
the people in pursuance of act of the Legislature. 

Massachusetts, formed 1780. Convention ad- 
journed till constitution was ratified by two-third 
vote. 

Texas, formed 1845. Submitted to and ratified 
by the people. 

The constitutions of the following States were 
submitted by conventions to the people, without 
their being required by law to do so: 

Florida, formed in 1838. Territorialact of 1838 
(see act of 1838, page 5) did not require the rat- 
ification ofthe constitution by tiie people. There 
was no authority of Congress. The convention 
(see Digest of Laws of Florida, page 9) required 
ratification by the people. 

California, formed in 1849. Convention re- 
quired the ratification of the constitution by the 
people. There was no authority of Congress or 
legislative act to frame a constitution. (See Stat- 
utes of California, page 24, sections 5, 6, and 7.) 

From this statement it will be seen , sir, that in 
fourteen States constitutions were formed by con- 
ventions, and went into operation without any 
submission whatever to the people. 

In fifteen Slates conventions, in obedience to 
the law convening them, directed the submission 
of tlieir constitutions to the people; and in only 
two Status, viz., Florida and California, conven- 
tions submitted their constitutions to the people, 
without being required by law to do so. 

But, considering the very peculiar circum- 
stances attending the formation of the constitu- 
tions and Slate governments of these States, 
Florida and California, tiiey can hardly be re- 
garded as exceptions to the rule and practice of 
conventions, viz., submitting constitutions onlij 
when they were expressly required by law to do 
so. 

In the case of Florida the constitution was sub- 
mitted to Congress F'ebruary 20, 1839, and it was 
not admitted as a State until March 3, 1845. This 
delay was occasioned by the great diversity of 
opinion which existed in the Territory, as to 
whether application should be made at that time 
for the admission of the Territory as a State, or 
to postpone tin- ajiplication uiuil their population 
would authorize them to ask admission for two 
Slates, East and West I'lorida, into the Union. 
It was this difference of o|)inion, as appears from 
the i)roceedings of Congress from 1839 to 1845, 



which postponed itaadmissionforso longatime. 
The submission of tlie constitution to the people 
was not intended merely (if at all) for the purpose 
of securing their ratification of its provisions; but 
for the purpose of ascertaining whether they do- 
sired, at that time, to make application, under the 
constitution submitted totliem, foradmission into 
the Union. The vote on this question was very 
nearly equal. The difference between Florida 
and Kansas, in this respect, is a very marked one. 
In Kansas the sense of the people as to whether 
they desired admission into the Union, was taken 
before the assembling of the convention, and in 
Florida, in a different form, after it had framed a 
constitution. 

And with regard to California the same neces- 
sity of submission existed in an equal, if not 
greater degree. At the time of the formation of 
the constitution of that State,California was not 
an organized Territory of the United States, but 
a conquered country, under military government. 
The convention of delegates to frame a constitu- 
tion was called not by any legal or any duly au- 
thorized body, but by order of the military gov- 
ernor. And under such circumstances it became 
an indispensable necessity, that a constitution, 
so framed , should be ratified by the people, in or- 
der to impart validity to it. Congress could not 
otherwise be expected to entertain their applica- 
tion for admission. 

In the case of Kansas, also, it must be observed, 
that so far from the convention being instructed 
by the Legislature to submit the constitution 
they might frame to the people for their sanc- 
tion, the very reverse may fairly be inferred from 
the fact that the act " to provide for the election 
of delegates to the convention" was vetoed by 
Governor Geary, because, as he says in his mes- 
sage returning the bill, " it failed to make any pro- 
vision to submit the constitution, when framed, 
to the consideration of the people for their ratifi- 
cation or rejection." And yet, sir, the act was 
passed over this veto, by a two-third vote. Cer- 
tainly then, after this expression of the Legisla- 
ture of Kansas, and the long line of precedents 
to which it might refer, the convention might 
fairly consider itself justified in submitting or not 
submitting the constitution to the people, as in ' 
its judgment at the time might bt; considered most 
expedient. From these facts is not, 1 ask, tlie 
inference plain and irresistible, that when the ; 
people, speaking through their representatives,] 
desire such a submission, they provide for it, and 
that when they do not i>rovide for it, a conven- j 
tion may considt_-r it iiimccessary for it to do what 
the law which called it into being did not require 
or expect it to do. It cannot be said in any case j 
where this w;is not required, that it was an over- 
sight. That would be doing great injustice to the 
Legislatures of the States, and to the learned men 
who participated in the formation of their several 
constitutions. i 

Again, sir, I will ask the attention of the Sen- 1 
ate to the "joint resolutions of Congress for an- 
nexing Texas to the United States," approved ' 
March 1, 184.5, for the purpose of showing the 
opinion enterlainrd by that body on this question 
of submission. Tliis "joint resolution" declares 
that— 

" Concross (IdiIi coiisriit tiiat the territory properly in 
eluded wuliin, and riglitl'iilly belongitig ti>, tin; Kcpublic of, 



Texas, may be erected into a new State, lo be called the 
State of Texas, with a republican form or government, to be 
adopted by tht! ppople of sjiid Republic, ' by deputies in con- 
vention assembled,' with the consent of the existing gov- 
ernment, In order tiiat the same may be admitted as one of 
the States of this Union." 

Not one word is here said about submission 
to the people, notwithstanding there was at that 
time probaljly as much difference of opinion, on 
some subjects, in that Republic, as now exists in 
Kansas on others. 

Again: in the resolution providing for the ad- 
mission of the State of Missouri, " on a certain 
condition, "approved March 2, 1821, such a sub- 
mission was not deemed necessary. This condi- 
tion was accepted, not by the people of Missouri, 
but by the Legislature of the State, by a solemn 
public act, declaring the assent of this State to the 
"fundamental condition contained in the resolu- 
tion of Congress," and approved June 26, 1821. 
This act of the Legislature, accepting the " fun- 
damental condition," which then became a part 
of the constitution of the State, was deemed an 
acceptance by the Slate; and the President of the 
United States, on the lOlh of August, 1821, issued 
his proclamation, declaring the admission of Mis- 
souri complete, according to law, and it became 
one of the States of the Union. 

We have now seen that an equal number of the 
States of the Union, the Congress of the United 
States, and the President, Mr. Monroe, have not 
regarded submission of a constitution to the peo- 
ple for their approval, as necessary to give it 
validity. Let me now ask attention to the action 
of the territorial committee of this body and the 
Senate on this very question. Tiie distinguished 
Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] on the 25th 
of June, 1856, submitted to the Senate a bill for 
the admission of Kansas as a State; which was 
referred to the Committee on Territories, of which 
the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Doug- 
las] was chairman. The third section of this 
bill contained the following ]irovision: 

" That the propositions be, and the same are lierel)y, of- 
fered t(i the said eonveiilioii of the people of Kansas, when 
formed, for their free acceptance or rejection ; which, if ac- 
cepted hy the convention, and riililied by the people at the 
election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obliga- 
tory upon the United States and the said State of Kiinsas." 

But, sir, when this bill, known as the "Toombs 
bill," was reported back to the Senate, tlie words 
" and ratified by the people at the election for the 
adoption of the constitution," were stricken out, 
and the bill as amended passed the Senate, every 
Democratic member present voting for it except 
one. 

And, Mr. President, in view of these facts, may 
I not say that, if the convention of Kansas did 
err in the respect of not submitting their whole 
constitution for popular approval, it has, never- 
theless, done more to propitiate the spirit of pop- 
ular sovereignty, by submitting an im|>orlant pro- 
vision in it, than fourteen Slates of the Union, 
whose constitutions, in whole (>r in part, have 
never received, by vole, the sanuiioi; of the peo- 
ple; and I submit that its rejection on that account 
at this day would be most cruel and unjust. 

If mis^-uided men in Kansas neglected the op- 
portuiiitv presented by such a submission to ex- 
hibit their majority , and, by their refusing to vote, 
gave an easy victory to theiropponents. (by which 
an obnoxious provision in the consliiuiion has 



6 



been retained in it, which they might have strick- 
en out,) they have no one to complain of but 
themselves, and the bad advisers who directed 
and controlled their action. 

The Territorial Legislature afforded them, in 
the first instance, an opportunity, if they were a 
majority, as they claim to be, to elect delegates, 
who would have represented their views, not only 
on the slavery, but on all other questions in the 
convention; and the convention afterwards gave 
them an opportunity of striking from the consti- 
tution it had framed the only provision on which 
any difference of opinion existed in the Territory, 
yet, neglecting both opportunities, these men, or 
rather this party, now complain of injustice and 
wrong having been done them in the formation 
and adoption of the constitution, and insist upon 
its rejection. Appearing upon the record, in all 
the votes cast for delegates to the convention, and 
afterwards in the vote on the constitution, as a 
minority, they still insist that they are a large ma- 

i'ority of the people of the Territory, and have 
een defrauded of their rights by a small minority. 

And, sir, if it be true tliat the free-State party, 
as it is called, with a majority of three to one, as 
compared to the so-called pro-slavery party, suf- 
fered itself to be oppressed, wronged, and down- 
trodden by so small a minority, they, sir, are not 
entitled to our sympathy for their sufferings, but, 
on the contrary, deserve our contempt for their 
cowardice and imbecility. They claim to be a 
large majority, and it may be true; but there is no 
evidence of it in any election returns with which 
Congress can have any concern. They refuse to 
give the proof of this in the only way in which it 
can be given — by their votes — and then modestly 
ask us to take their word for it that they are a very 
large majority, and that the constitution framed 
at Lecompton is not in accordance with their will. 

In the election for delegates to the convention, 
and the vote on the slavery clause of the consti- 
tution, the majority was very large against this 
party. No doubt it was so very large because in 
a factious spirit, they refused to vote on these oc- 
casions. But tliis was their own act, and they 
have no right to ask Congress to give them relief 
from the consequences of their own misconduct, 
by setting aside the elections in which they re- 
fused to participate. Congress can only judge of 
the result of an election by votes delivered, and 
not by votes withheld. 

In this case, it seems to me that the only ques- 
tions which Congress can properly consider (with 
reference to its admission) are not, whether every 
man in the Territory voted or not, nor into every 
irregularity which occurred in the elections; nor 
whether more frauds were committed by one party 
or the other party in the Territory, in their local 
elections. With these things Congress has noth- 
ing to do. But they may inquire into the legality 
of the body which framed the constitution, and 
as to the vote by wliich the constitution, or that 
part submitted to the people, was adopted. And 
in regard to the legality of the one, and the fair- 
ness of the other, there ought to be no dispute. 

The Territorial Legislature, elected by the 
people, recognized by Congress, by the President 
and late Preside nl of the United Slates, by all the 
Governors of the Territory, including Governor 
Walker, were fully authorized in assembling a con- 
vention to frame a constitution, preparatory to its 



application foradmission as a State into the Union. 
The sense of the people of the Territory had been 
taken as to whether they desired to be admitted 
into the Union, and a large majority were in favor 
of it. The Territorial Legislature then, in con- 
formity with their wishes thus expressed, passed 
an act providing for the election of delegates to a 
convention to frame a constitution. The legal- 
ity of this act is fully maintained by Governor 
Walker. He says: 

"The Territorial Legislature, then, in assembling this 
convention, were fully sustained bj' the act of Congress ; 
and the authority of the convention is distinctly recognized 
in my instructions from the President of the United States. 
Those who oppose this course cannot aver the alleged irreg- 
ularity of the Territorial Legislature, whose laws in town 
and city elections, in corporate francliises,and on all other 
subjects but slavery, they acknowledge by their votes and 
acquiescence. If that Legislature was invalid, then are we 
without law or order in Kansas ; without town, city, or 
county organization ; all legal and judicial transactions are 
void ; all titles null ; and anarchy reigns throughout our bor- 
ders." 

The whole people are then invited and urged 
to vote for their delegates. 

Mr. Stanton, inhis address of the 17th of April, 
1857, says: 

"The Government especially recognizes the territorial 
act which provides for assembling a convention to frame a 
constitution, with a view to making application to Congress 
for admission as a State into the Union. That act is re- 
garded as presenting the only test of the qualification of 
votes for delegates to the convention, and all preceding re- 
pugnant restrictions are thereby repealed. In this light the 
act must be allowed to have provided for a full and fair 
expression of the will of the people tltrough the delegates who 
may be chosen to represent them in the constitutional con- 
vention." 

And Governor Walker, on the 27th of May, in 
his inaugural address, says: 

"The people of Kansas, then, are invited by the highest 
authority known to the Constitution, to participate freely, 
and fairly, in the election of delegates to frame a constitu- 
tion and State government." 

And in the same address he warns them of the 
consequences which may result from their refusal 
to exercise the right of suffrage. He says: 

" You should not console yourself with the reflection th a 
you may, by a subsequent vote, defeat the ratification of the 
constitution." * * • " Why incur the hazard of the prelim- 
inary formation of a constitution, by a minority, as alleged by 
you, when a majority, by their own votes, could control tlie 
traming of that instrument." 

But notwithstanding these invitations, appeals, 
and solemn warnings, a portion claiming to be a 
majority of the people refused to take part in the 
election, and thus suffered a minority to elect their 
delegates and frame a constitution in accordance 
with their own views. 

The convention of delegates then, thus fairly 
elected, metandframedaconstitution;and among 
its provisions is to be found one recognizing the in- 
stitution of domestic slavery within the State. All 
the disturbances in Kansas, from the establishment 
of the territorial government, had their origin in 
this distracting and dangerous subject; and as it 
wasa provision of paramount importance,'the con- 
vention submitted it to the people for them to de- 
termine whether it siiould be retained in the con- 
stitution or stricken out. The question was thus 
ordered by the convention to be submitted to the 
people to be decided by their votes: " constitution 
with slavery, "or" constitution withoutslavery." 
At the time and places ordered, jiolis were opened 
and the votes were received on this single ques- 
tion. 



The convention was not bound, as I have before 
stated, by the act of the Territorial Legislature to 
submit the whole or any part of the constitution 
for ratification; but they did submit that part of 
it which related to this question, and the factious 
and revolutionary party, in like manner as they 
refused to vote for delegates to the convention, 
refused to vote upon this submission. It was 
accordingly retained, and is now a part of the 
organic law of Kansas as presented to Con- 
gress. 

It seems to me, sir, that these people, being in 
a state of rebellion against the territorial govern- 
ment and the United States, were determined to 
resist from the beginning everything tending to a 
quiet settlement of the disturbances in the Terri- 
tory, and the organization of a State government; 
ana that I may do no injustice to them, I ask 
leave to insert what Governor Walker says to 
them in his proclamation of the 15th of July: 

"You have, liowever, chosen to disregard the laws of 
Congress, and of the territorial government created by it ; 
and whilst professing to acknowledge a State government 
rejected by Congress, and which can, therefore, now exist 
only by a successful rebellion, and exact from all yourolfi- 
cers the perilous and sacrilegious oath to support the so- 
called State constitution ; yet you have, even in defiance 
of the so-called State Legislature, which refused to grant 
you a charter, proceeded to create a local government of 
your own, based only upon insurrection and revolution. 
The very oath which you require from all your officers, to 
support your so-called Topeka State constitution, is violated 
in tiie ver>' act of putting in operation a charter rejected 
even by them. 

" A rebellion so iniquitous, and necessarily involving such 
awful consequences, has never before disgraced any age or 
country." 

And I will here express a strong doubt, judg- 
ing from the turbulent and rebellious character of 
these men, whether, if the whole constitution had 
been submitted to them, and had been rejected, 
they would have called a convention to make an- 
other one. I think it extremely doubtful. Pre- 
tending, as they do, to regard the Topeka consti- 
tution as a valid one, they would adhere to it. 
For the sake of consistency they would maintain 
the validity of their own constitution, and would 
hardly vote for anything which would destroy the 
work of their own hands, and expose the iniquity 
of their own conduct. Besides, sir, a large num- 
ber of these men do not want a settlement of this 
question. That would bring peace not only to 
Kansas, butto the Union; and their vocation would 
be gone. It is not peace that they seek or desire. 
It is agitation. Did they seek peace — did they hon- 
estly desire to change the constitution by peaceful 
and speedy means — they would be here, sir, ad- 
vocating the admission of Kansas as a State, at 
the earliest possible day, that they might then 
take its government into their own hands, and 
make such a constitution and laws as would suit 
themselves. There can be but one of two reasons 
why they do not pursue this course: either they 
know they are not, as they claim to be, a major- 
ity of the people; or, if they are a majority, tney 
prefer strife, agitation, civil war, and bloodshed, 
to a peaceful settlement of this question. And all 
this can, and I fear will, be brought about by the 
rejection of the Lecompton constitution. 

In this spirit, and with this end in view, they 
pretend that no change can be made in the con- 
stitution until the year 1864, and that the curse 
of slavery will be fixed upon them until that time, 
if not forever. And this is done in the face of 



the Bill of Rights, which provides, in article two, 
that— 

" All political power is inherent in the people, and all 
free governments are founded on their authority, and insti- 
tuted for their benefit ; and therefore they have at all times 
an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or 
abolish their form of government in such manner as they 
may think proper." 

And also, in the face of the plain meaning of 
the article in the schedule which provides, that 
the constitution, after the year 18G4, cannot be 
altered except in a manner prescribed; but says 
nothing whatever in regard to it between the time 
of its adoption and the period above named, 
1864: 

" Sec. 14. After the year one thousand eight hundred and 
sixty-four, whenever the Legislature shall think it neces- 
sary to amend, alter, or change iu constitution, they shall 
recommend to the electors at the next general election, 
two thirds of the members of each House concurring, to 
vote for or against calling a convention ; and if it shall ap- 
pear that a majority of all citizens of the State have voted 
for a convention, the Legislature shall, at its next regular 
session, call a convention, to consist of as many members as 
there may be in the House of Representatives at the time, 
to be chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and 
by the same electors that choose the representatives : said 
delegates so elected shall meet within throe months after 
said election, for the purpose of revising, amending, or 
changing the constitution ; but no alteration shall be made 
to afl'ect the rights of property in the ownership of slaves." 

The report of the territorial committee of the 
Senate, presented on the 18th of February last, 
in reference to this question, says: 

"The Lecompton convention has provided a full, lawful, 
and perfect remedy for every conceivable grievance, and 
placed the remedyin the unrestricted hands of the majority 
of the people, by inserting in the constitution the following 
distinct and unequivocal recognition of power." 

That is in the second article of the bill of rights, 
to which I have just referred. 

Again, Mr. President, if all change were pro- 
hibited until 1864, it seems to me that it comes 
with an ill grace from the especial advocates of 
the doctrine of popular sovereignty to deny to the 
people the right to make a change in their organic 
law, in spite of any prohibition whatever, when- 
ever they see fit. And it is not at all consistent 
for them to maintain that the sovereigns of to-day 
may frame a constitution which cannot be chano-ed 
without revolution by the sovereigns of to-nior- 
row. If this be true, sir, then have the people of 
these United States passed through a great many 
revolutions without their knowing it; for nearly 
every old State in the Union, and some of the new 
States, have changed their constitutions within 
the past half century. But, on this point, I will 

take the liberty to refer to very high authority 

the distinguished Senator from New York, [Mr. 
Seward.] In his speech, delivered in the Senate 
on the 2d of July, 1856, on the admission of Kan- 
sas as a State, under the Topeka constitution, he 
says: 

" I take the constitution, as we must all take it, for better 
or for worse— just as it is— or we cannot admit the State at 
all. The people in the new States make their constitutions. 
Our power is limited to the admission or rejection of a State, 
whatever its constitution may be. Again, it is not clear that 
the provision complained ol by the Senator from Georgia will 
prevent the people of Kansas from subverting this consti- 
tution, and establishing a new one at any time short of the 
expiration of nine years. The constitution of the State of 
New York, established in 1821, provided for alterations to be 
made with the consent of two successive Legislatures. A 
party desiring radical innovation, and linding it impossible 
to obtain that object in the form prescribed in the constitu- 
tion, aeciucd a majority in the Legislature ; and, without any 



8 



coni?titutional authority, carried tli rough a law by which pro- 
ceedings were instituted for calling a convention, which was 
subsequently held, and which framed a new constitution. 
This new constitution, beine submitted to the people, and 
approved by them, in derogation of the old one, became, .and 
it yet remains, the supreme law of the land." 

And so in the State of New Jersey. The con- 
stitution of 1776, which was abolished by the sub- 
stitution of that of 1845, declared it " firm and 
inviolable, unless a reconciliation between' Great 
Britain and the colonies should take place, and 
the latter taken under the protection of the Crown 
of Britain;" or, in other words, it was declared 
to be firm and inviolable forever. Yet a majority 
of the Legislature of that State passed an " act to 
provide for the election of delegates to prepare a 
constitution of the State, and for submitting the 
same to the people thereof for ratification or re- 
jection." And this convention met and framed 
a constitution, which in due time was submitted 
and approved, and is now in full force in that 
State. During all which time, from the passage 
of that act until the new constitution went into 
operation, the people of that State were entirely 
unconscious that they were passing through a 
revolution. 

I think, therefore, we need be under no concern 
in reference to the ability of the people of Kansas, 
both under the provisions of the constitution and 
the higher law of popular sovereignty, to change 
their constitution whenever they see fit. 

Mr. President, the present opportunity of set- 
tling the dangerous question of slavery, and 
binding together with new and strong bonds of 
affection the different sections of our common 
country, should not pass unimproved. Bad as 
things have been in Kansas for the last few years, 
I feel very confident they will be rendered infi- 
nitely worse if we refuse to admit the State into 
the Union at this time. Frauds, iniquities, and 
acts of violence without number, have been per- 
petrated, perhaps, in an equal degree by both par- 



ties. They are painful in the extreme, and I am 
impatient that we should be relieved from their 
consideration, and that these people should be 
left to settle their own difficulties in their own 
way. '^ J^on nostrum tantas componere liUs." It 
is not for Congress to assume the duty of settling 
their domestic difficulties. 

The evils to arise from the rejection of Kansas 
appear to me so great and fearful, and those which 
may arise from its admission so slight and tran- 
sitory, that I cannot hesitate to plead for its ad- 
mission. Rejectit,and you reopen with increased 
ferocity the intestine war which has been raging 
for years past, but which at the present moment 
has nearly ceased. The strife, then, will not be 
confined to the inhabitants of that region, but 
auxiliaries from free States on the one side, and 
slave States on the other, with arms in their hands, 
will rush to the seat of war, thirsting for each 
other's blood. And, sir, if the Union should sur- 
vive the rejection, which I doubt, (for the united 
South would consider it a declaration that here- 
after no slave State shall be admitted into the 
Union,) who can fail to see that war cannot be con- 
fined to the locality of Kansas.' It will go into 
bordering States. It will be a sectional war, and 
the knell of the Union will then be rung. At 
present there is a calm in Kansas. For the sake 
of the Union, do not disturb it; do not raise an- 
other storm which, in its fury, may sweep away 
not only Kansas, but yourselves. Leave the peo- 
ple of Kansas free to fight their own battles for 
supremacy, under their own State government 
and laws. They will soon settle down as the citi- 
zens of all the other States have done, and we 
shall hear no more of bleeding Kansas or of bor- 
der ruffians. More than all, the slavery agitation, 
banished from the Halls of Congress, will cease 
to distract us, and our beloved Union will be es- 
tablished on a basis which, I trust in God, may 
never be overthrown. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 136 016 4 



I 




